Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1607 (GUJ)

Kamleshbhai Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-08

A.J.SHASTRI, ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2017
ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to direct respondent No. 4-Police Inspector, Prantij Police Station [wrongly mentioned as respondent No. 3 in the prayer-clause at Paragraph 13(B)] to produce the corpus Snehal, who is the daughter of the petitioner, before this Court. 2. It is stated in the petition that since 11.08.2017, the corpus has been missing from home. She has left the house while the petitioner and his wife were at their agricultural field. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has abducted and taken away the corpus by blackmailing her, on account of certain photographs of her alleged to have been taken in a compromising position. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner received a letter dated 16.08.2017 from the corpus, to the effect that she has left the house of her own free will and would want to marry respondent No. 2. However, according to the petitioner, the said letter is false and concocted and is written under the pressure of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, the uncle of respondent No. 2. The petition has, therefore, been filed for the production of the corpus. 3. We have heard Mr. N.L. Ramnani, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Rajkumar Chaumal, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 is only twenty years of age and though the corpus is an adult, aged nineteen years, however, she cannot marry respondent No. 2, therefore, she has been pressurised to go with him forcibly. 5. On the other hand Mr. Rajkumar Chaumal, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3, submits that as per his instructions, the corpus has gone with respondent No. 2 of her own free will. 6. In order to set the controversy at rest, we have chosen to speak to the corpus in Chambers. The corpus has clearly informed us that she is not under any threat or pressure from respondent No. 2. On the contrary, she has left the house of the petitioner, her father, voluntarily and of her own free will to live with respondent No. 2. The corpus has clearly informed us that she is not under any threat or pressure from respondent No. 2. On the contrary, she has left the house of the petitioner, her father, voluntarily and of her own free will to live with respondent No. 2. She further states that though respondent No. 2 is aged twenty years at present, however, she is prepared to wait for another year, until he attains the legal age for marriage. At present, the corpus and respondent No. 2 are living with certain relatives of respondent No. 2. The corpus has categorically stated that she does not want to go with the petitioner and she wants to go with respondent No. 2. 7. Taking into consideration the unequivocal wish and desire of the corpus to go with respondent No. 2 and the fact that she is an adult and capable of taking her own decisions regarding her life and future, we deem it appropriate to permit the corpus to go with whomsoever she desires. As it transpires from the statements made by the corpus that there has been no threat or pressure upon her and neither has she been forcibly abducted by respondent No. 2, the allegations made in the petition are not found to be correct. There has been no illegal detention of the corpus, therefore, the petition cannot succeed. 8. Hence, the following order: The petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.